First, who are the “savers” that need to become more profligate and learn to love satisfying their desires? Other than the American petit bourgeoisie/shopkeepers, I can’t think of anyone here (our ‘ruling’ elite is profligate to the point of disgust –see any issue of ‘Forbes Life’–and everyone else hasn’t been saving money for years) –is he thinking of the non-Protestant Chinese? If he means that Americans shouldn’t be so schizophrenic about their consumption (DO IT, but then feel guilty), that’s a different point.

Second, relatedly, as so often happens, he steps into the realm of philosophy without realizing the complexity of the issues involved over hedonism and its variants: do I satisfy a pleasure now, damn the later pains (e.g., his hamburger parable versus e.g. heart disease later–or should the Chinese spend spend spend and they’ll deal with abject poverty in retirement later)? Do other people and their desires matter (a desire for a cheap iPhone versus the desire of the worker for a better wage)? What if satisfying my desire harms others? Do the desires of the whole outweigh the desires of the few (e.g. good roads and schools versus the desire for lesser taxes)? What about higher pleasures (reading a good book) versus lower (e.g., a one-night stand)? There are so much more.

Finally, Mandeville (and Keynes too I believe) were more interested in the workers and peasants sharing in the high culture of the bourgeoisie (good art, poetry, opera, nice furniture and clothing, good food, leisure) than being able to satisfy their whim for a good burger or a new smartphone.